Regulatory Impact Assessment and

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

ADA FINAL RULE: RAIL SYSTEM 

ACCESSIBILITY

JULY 2011

Prepared by:

Economic Analysis Division

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Department of Transportation
1

Introduction

Overview

This document evaluates the benefits, costs, and other impacts of a DOT rulemaking related to 

the accessibility of commuter rail transportation and intercity passenger rail service. In keeping 

with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT policy, the analysis has been 

prepared with the goal of “assessing the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives,” allowing 

policymakers to make regulatory decisions in light of the “best reasonably obtainable scientific, 

technical, economic, and other information” (E.O. 12866).

Benefits and costs of the rule are presented in the sections below. Based on the information 

gathered for this analysis, the overall benefits and costs of the rule are relatively modest, since 

many aspects of rail service accessibility are already required by existing regulations. 

Compliance costs are estimated at about $1.8 million in construction costs, plus some minor 

increases in operational costs for certain commuter rail systems that use mini-high platforms. 

Benefits of the rule are mainly in the form of serving passengers with disabilities in a more 

integrated setting.

General Benefit-Cost Principles

The basic framework for regulatory evaluation is an examination of the future world with the 

regulation in place, versus a baseline of the future world in the absence of the regulation. The 

analysis ordinarily takes a “societal” perspective in which all benefits and costs are included 

regardless of to whom they accrue. Non-monetary impacts are quantified to the extent possible, 

for example by converting travel time savings or emissions avoided into monetary terms. 

Benefits and costs that accrue in future periods are also converted to present value terms using a 

discount rate that accounts for the time value of money. As E.O. 13563 recognizes that “some 

benefits and costs are difficult to quantify,” qualitative impacts of the rule are also included in 

the analysis. 

Benefit-cost analyses in the transportation field typically look at safety, mobility, and/or 

environmental impacts and attempt to identify the alternative that will maximize societal net 

benefits. In this case, the final rule is not primarily intended to make travel safer or more 

efficient in the conventional sense, though there would be the potential for some small travel 

time savings, as discussed in the Benefits section. Instead, the rule is aimed at ensuring equal 

access to transportation services as a civil right under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 

analysis reflects this focus.

Summary of Provisions

The rule would generally require all new or altered rail stations in commuter or inter-city 

passenger service to meet a performance standard whereby persons with disabilities, including 

wheelchair users, could access all accessible cars of each train using that station that are 

available to other passengers. In cases where the track is not shared with existing freight service, 

this standard would need to be met through level-entry boarding, i.e. coordination of the platform 

height with train car height. In cases where the track is shared with freight service, the standard 
2

could be met through level boarding, or – with approval from FTA (for commuter rail) or FRA

(for intercity service) – through mini-high platforms (with multiple stops as may be necessary), 

carborne lifts, station-based lifts, ramps, bridge plates, or a combination of these approaches. 

The additional flexibility for services that share track with freight rail is provided due to 

concerns regarding the wider clearance required by freight cars. The current proposal has been 

substantially revised since the 2006 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), based in part on

comments received on the docket.

Methodology Overview

To understand the impacts of the rule, the study team reviewed the comments submitted in 

response to the 2006 NPRM, keeping in mind the subsequent revisions to the rule; gathered 

published data on current accessibility practices, compliance costs, and planned rail service 

expansions and station renovations; participated (by telephone) in a meeting of the American 

Public Transportation Association’s commuter rail CEO forum; and interviewed staff from FTA, 

Amtrak, and commuter railroads. 

Key questions for cost analysis included the current and planned future accessibility approach for 

each railroad, and the resulting number of new or altered stations that would, under the final rule, 

require accessibility features that exceed those of the baseline, as well as the incremental costs of 

those features. In evaluating the potential impacts of the rule, it was assumed that railroads 

would select the compliance option that was most consistent with their operational practices and 

that would minimize their overall costs, including any upfront equipment costs and/or changes in 

staffing and operations. Benefits were assessed qualitatively using information about the 

improvements in rail accessibility.

Summary of Regulatory Baseline (No Action)

Several sections of current regulations deal with the platform-vehicle interface for commuter rail 

and inter-city passenger rail. The basic approach, as laid out in 36 CFR 1192 and 49 CFR 38 and 

interpreted by DOT Disability Law Guidance of September 1, 2005, is that full-length level 

boarding is the standard for new or altered platforms wherever feasible. Level boarding is 

defined as no more than a 3-inch horizontal and 5/8-inch vertical gap between the train and 

platform. DOT has acknowledged that a variety of factors (e.g. equipment wear and suspension) 

make these gap standards difficult to achieve in the real world, and 49 CFR 37, Appendix A, 

Section 10.3.1(9) provides an exception where it is not “technically or operationally feasible” to 

meet the gap requirements. This exception is potentially open to interpretation, but has been 

interpreted by DOT to include cases where freight train clearance requirements, sections of 

curved track, or other situations preclude the use of full-length high platforms. In these cases, 

mini-high platforms, car-borne or platform-mounted lifts, ramps or bridge plates are permitted by 

regulation, though DOT guidance views high platforms with bridgeplates as the preferred option 

to be used wherever possible. “Mini-highs” are small raised sections of the platform, accessed 

by ramps, that provide for level boarding of one or two cars with the assistance of a bridgeplate. 

Rail operators who use mini-highs or similar approaches are required to provide access to each 

train, but are generally not required to “double stop” to permit access to multiple cars, except in 

cases where there is no available accessible seating in the car that ordinarily aligns with the minihigh.
3

Nearly all commuter, inter-city, and high-speed passenger railroads receive Federal funding and 

are thus also subject to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations, 

including the general requirement to provide “services [...] in the most integrated setting that is 

reasonably achievable” (49 CFR 27.7(b)(2)). Again, DOT has viewed this as requiring level 

boarding wherever possible, or at least an approach (such as carborne lifts) that does not tend to 

segregate wheelchair users from other passengers.

In practice, the accessibility approach that railroads employ varies from line to line and in some 

cases from station to station, based on the train equipment in use, technical constraints, passenger 

volumes, staffing practices, and other factors. Railroads that own and control their right-of-way, 

such as the Long Island Rail Road, have generally adopted high platforms as their standard 

approach, not only for accessibility reasons but also because it reduces station dwell time. 

Amtrak likewise uses high platforms on the Northeast Corridor. By contrast, railroads that 

operate on freight-owned tracks generally do not provide high platforms due to issues regarding

freight clearance. A few of these, such as the Westside Express Service (WES) in Portland, 

Oregon, have been able to implement level boarding from high platforms by building gauntlet 

tracks (i.e., a set of double, interlaced tracks on the same railbed) that allow freight trains to pass 

through station areas with a sufficient clearance envelope from the high platform. More 

commonly, these railroads use low platforms with mini-highs or wayside lifts, often with a 

systemwide approach that ensures that the mini-high or lift aligns with the same car at each 

station. Wayside lifts are the most common approach for Amtrak stations outside of the 

Northeast Corridor. A small number of railroads have instead focused on purchasing liftequipped coaches, which provide flexibility when there is a need to board passengers from 

several different levels (e.g., high platform, low platform, and street level).

The table below summarizes the status of each of these accessibility approaches under the 

current and the draft final rule. As the table shows, many of the differences are relatively minor; 

railroads would generally face similar requirements under the draft final rule. Railroads who 

share with freight services would be able to use the same accessibility practices, with some 

exceptions and modifications, as they do now. 

Summary of Draft Final Rule vs. Current Rule

Accessibility Approach for 

Platform-Car Interface at 

New or Altered Stations

Status Under Current 

Regulations

Status Under Draft Final

Regulations

Level boarding Must be used unless not 

technically or operationally 

feasible. 

Must be used unless stationarea track on that line or 

system is shared with existing 

freight service. FTA/FRA must

approve the alternative 

approach.
4

Accessibility Approach for 

Platform-Car Interface at 

New or Altered Stations

Status Under Current 

Regulations

Status Under Draft Final

Regulations

Carborne lift Permissible if level boarding 

is not feasible. At least one

car per train must be liftequipped.

Permissible in systems where 

station-area track is shared with 

existing freight service, if all

accessible cars serving the

station are lift-equipped and the 

approach is approved by 

FTA/FRA.

Mini-high platforms Permissible if level boarding 

is not feasible. Doublestopping is not required 

except where no accessible 

spaces remain in the 

relevant car.

Permissible in systems where 

station-area track is shared with 

existing freight service, if 

approved by FTA/FRA. Doublestopping required on request of 

passenger.

Wayside/platform lift Permissible if level boarding 

is not feasible. At least one 

car per train must be 

accessible. Double-stopping 

is not required except where 

no accessible spaces remain 

in the relevant car.

Permissible in systems where 

station-area track is shared with 

existing freight service, if the lift 

provides access to all cars 

(e.g., a mobile lift) and the 

approach is approved by 

FTA/FRA. 

The draft final rule would not alter any of the existing regulations related to other aspects of 

commuter rail and inter-city passenger rail accessibility, such as the accessibility of station 

ticketing and waiting areas, onboard facilities, or reservation systems. It would also leave in 

place all existing responsibilities to retrofit accessibility features at “Key Stations” in public 

transportation systems and at all Amtrak stations, according to the schedules adopted in statute 

and prior rulemakings. Amtrak did not meet its 2010 deadline but continues to work toward 

accessibility of all stations, and has produced a comprehensive inventory of the accessibility

level at each of its stations. No nationwide inventory is available for commuter rail stations, and 

the range of current accessibility varies widely. Many newer commuter rail stations are fully 

ADA-compliant, but some older stations – those that were not designated as “Key Stations” by 

their agency and that have not been altered since the passage of ADA – still remain without any

accessibility features at all. 

Other Assumptions and Limitations

This analysis attempts to capture the impact of the rule on planned new and altered stations and 

new rail systems, based on interviews, published information from the railroads (e.g. capital 

improvement plans), and industry-wide sources such as the APTA station database. However, 

capital projects of this nature are subject to funding constraints, permitting delays, and political 

decisions, while new projects (not currently planned) may emerge in the future based on funding 

availability or new policy priorities. Therefore, estimates of planned station construction are 

inherently variable, particularly as the forecast goes further into the future. This analysis uses a 

10-year forecast period (2011-2020) as the longest period for which reasonably detailed and 

reliable information can be obtained. Within this period, Amtrak has used 2011-2015 as its 

implementation period for bringing its existing stations into ADA compliance.
5

This analysis also excludes the potential effects of state or local accessibility guidelines and 

standards as they relate to rail stations and platforms. For example, regulations issued by the 

Massachusetts Architectural Access Board require full-length level boarding at new commuter 

rail stations and at least a 2-car length mini-high platform at altered and renovated stations (521 

CMR 18). In general, state accessibility regulations supersede federal rules only when they

provide for more (rather than less) accessibility. However, analyzing 50 sets of state regulations 

and their interaction with existing and proposed federal regulations is a complexity that is 

beyond the scope of the current analysis. To the extent that any of the affected railroads would 

need to comply with state regulations, the impacts of the draft final federal rule would be 

lessened or eliminated since the prevailing state rules would be stricter.

For simplicity, the analysis also assumes that adoption of the rule would not affect military use 

of the railroad network under the Strategic Rail Corridor (STRACNET) program. It is assumed 

that the rule would not supersede these defense requirements.

Analysis: Commuter Rail Transportation

There are 24 commuter rail systems in the United States (See Table 1)1. Commuter rail is defined 

by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) as service provided on regular 

railroads or railroad rights of way by either self-propelled cars or cars pulled by locomotives that 

pick up passengers in stations only. It generally links suburbs to major urban areas. According to 

the APTA Public Transportation Factbook, Americans took a total of 472 million unlinked

commuter rail trips in 2008, 4.5% of all trips taken on public transportation that year. Commuter 

rail trips make up 20% of the passenger miles traveled on public transportation. Commuter rail 

systems also saw the largest percentage point increase in accessibility from 1993 to 2008 of all 

modes, during which the percentage of cars that were accessible by lift, ramp, or station 

infrastructure went from 43% to 83%. 

Because the universe of commuter rail systems is small, we aimed to reach as many systems as

possible. We started our research with those who submitted comments to the original Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in 2006. We then used the APTA Public Transportation Infrastructure 

Database’s Commuter Rail Route Segment Table from December 2008 to identify new systems, 

proposed routes, and those under construction, and made it a priority to contact those who were 

new or considering expansion, as the rule’s impact would be limited to new and altered stations. 

We also used online searches to verify the information from 2008, as some plans either passed to 

the construction stage or were laid aside. We then interviewed 9 commuter rail agencies 

individually. Lastly, we were able to hear from agencies on an APTA conference call that also 

 

1 The 24 systems listed in Table 1 are not the same as the 23 agencies listed in Table 28 of the Public Transportation 

Factbook. Table 1 includes four newer systems: New Mexico’s Rail Runner Express; Austin, Texas’ Capital 

MetroRail; Portland, Oregon’s Westside Express Service; and Minnesota’s Northstar. It excludes Pennsylvania 

DOT’s Keystone Express and Portland, ME’s Downeaster service as they are operated and marketed as Amtrak 

services and are covered in the Amtrak section of this report. In addition, Trinity Railway Express (TRE) is operated 

jointly between Fort Worth and Dallas, and is presented as a single listing in Table 1 despite being listed twice in the 

APTA Factbook. 
6

included other commuter rail industry experts. That call provided more general information 

about accessibility practices in different operating environments.

Table 1. Commuter Rail Systems

System Metropolitan Area

New Mexico Rail Runner 

Express

Albuquerque, NM

Alaska Railroad Corporation Anchorage, AK

Capital MetroRail Austin, TX

Maryland Area Rail 

Commuter (MARC)

Baltimore/ Washington

Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority 

Boston, MA

Metra Chicago, IL

South Shore Line (NICTD) Chicago, IL / South Bend, IN

Trinity Railway Express Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

Metrolink Los Angeles, CA

Tri-Rail Miami, FL

Northstar Minneapolis-St. Paul

Music City Star Nashville, TN

Shore Line East New Haven, CT

MTA Long Island Railroad 

(LIRR)

New York, NY

MTA Metro-North New York, NY

New Jersey Transit New York / Philadelphia / Atlantic City

Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority 

(SEPTA)

Philadelphia, PA

Westside Express Service Portland, OR

FrontRunner Salt Lake City, UT

North County Transit District 

Coaster

San Diego, CA

Caltrain San Francisco, CA

Altamont Commuter Express San Jose / San Joaquin, CA

Sounder Seattle, WA

Virginia Railway Express

(VRE)

Washington, DC

Docket Summary

We reviewed and summarized all rail-related comments on the docket for the NPRM published 

in 2006 (DOT-OST-2006-23985), aside from those that dealt with strictly procedural or legal 

issues. The purpose of the docket review was to (1) gain insight into the likely approaches that 
7

commuter and inter-city passenger railroads would take to meet new platform accessibility

requirements, (2) understand the staffing and operational considerations associated with different 

accessibility approaches, and (3) gather any available data on the costs of relevant equipment or 

construction. 

The docket review was conducted with the understanding that the regulatory proposal has been 

significantly revised since these comments were submitted, and that some commenters may have

misinterpreted the original proposal. Due to these limitations, much of the information in the 

docket is not directly applicable to the current analysis, but provides valuable context on railroad 

operations and current conditions.

The table in Appendix B presents a summary of the key points from each commenter. Generally 

speaking, there was a split in the comments between the older systems of the northeast and the 

newer systems in the south and west. The former group tended to object to the potential increase 

in the number of bridgeplates deployed, increases in dwell time, the gap requirements, and 

challenges with using 1:8 slope ramps. The latter group of railroads have generally designed 

their systems with a single mini-high platform, and expressed concerns about the impact of high 

platforms on shared freight operations. Most of these concerns are now moot due to the way the 

proposed rule has been revised. However, the newer systems were also adamant that having to 

build new stations to a different design would reduce the system's accessibility as a whole, for 

example by resulting in situations where passengers could board a car at one station but could 

not readily alight from it in another station without a major change in railroad operations or 

staffing. Again, these concerns relate largely to the prior version of the rule rather than the final 

rule, though there could be cases where commuter rail agencies would need to employ effective

passenger communication to prevent these situations.

Some newer systems also have stations that serve cars of different floor heights, handling this 

either with bi-level mini-highs or a combination of mini-highs and platform- or car-based lifts. A 

limited number of rail systems, notably Metra in the Chicago area, already make extensive use of 

car-based lifts.

With regard to cost data, the high level of variation in service levels, equipment, and labor costs 

among the railroads creates a wide range of quoted costs, and many of the submissions did not 

provide enough detail on the sources of data or methods of estimation. According to some 

commenters, increasing staffing to one crew member per car in order to deploy bridgeplates at 

high-level platforms would cost $2.1 to $3.5 million per year, and deploying these bridgeplates 

at each stop would increase dwell times anywhere from 90 seconds to 9 minutes. Information 

from another commenter indirectly suggested a cost of approximately $65,000 per car for adding 

a car-based lift. Estimates of high-level platform construction costs were around $5 million, or 

around $9 million if tracks must also be moved. This figure would need to be adjusted to reflect 

only the incremental cost of a high platform compared to the agency’s current standard (e.g. low 

platform with a single mini-high). This cost information was taken into consideration in the cost 

analysis below, though in most cases the reported costs are not relevant for the final rule, or more 

detailed information was available. Likewise, although the issue of gauntlet tracks is somewhat 

less relevant for the new regulatory proposal, these estimates ranged from $1 to $15 million, 

depending on local conditions and right-of-way costs.
8

Interviews

Using the docket comments and the APTA route database, we made a list of systems that were 

likely to have significant numbers of new or refurbished stations in the next 10 years. Then, via a 

combination of one-on-one interviews, an APTA moderated phone call with commuter rail 

CEOs, and online research, we gathered information on their current plans for accessibility and 

their likely response in the face of the new rule. To make the most of the information requests 

allowed by the Paperwork Reduction Act, we aimed for a sample that included geographic and 

system diversity, and we also focused on new systems still under construction that are not 

included in the 24 systems listed above: Denver FasTracks, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit

(SMART), and Sun Rail in Orlando, Florida. One-on-one telephone interviews were conducted

with:

 Virginia Railway Express

 Alaska Railroad

 Metra

 MBTA

 Tri-Rail

 Denver FasTracks

 Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit

 Sun Rail

 North County Transit District COASTER

In addition, the Commuter Rail CEO group at APTA offered us their time during a conference 

call to gather information on the state of practice at various systems across the country. On the 

call were representatives from:

 Trinity Railway Express

 Seattle Sounder

 North County Transit District COASTER

 BNSF’s Passenger Operations, which works closely with Metra, the Seattle 

Sounder, and the Minnesota Northstar

 Caltrain

 Metra

 SEPTA

 Metro-North

 Amtrak 

 APTA (Kathy Waters, chair of the group and former head of rail operations at 

MARC)

Between the interviews and the conference call, we were able to hear from a broad spectrum of 

commuter rail operations, ranging from the established systems of the Northeast and Chicago to 

the newer systems in the West and South. This broad range view was important, as the regulation 

affects the types differently. For the purposes of this report, we divided existing commuter 

railroads into three rough groupings based on their current accessibility approach and likely 
9

response. The first group consists of the primarily older systems of the Northeast; the second is 

the “New Starts” systems built after the passage of the ADA in 1990; and the third group 

includes five systems with unique characteristics. Six commuter railroads that are either under 

construction or in final design were included as a fourth group for analysis.

Table 2. Primarily Older Systems in the Northeast

System Stations Level MiniHighStation 

Based 

Lift

Car 

Based 

Lifts

No 

Accessible 

Features

Source

MBTA 134 24 73 37 Capital 

Improvement 

Plan and system 

map

Shore Line 

East

9 8 1 System website

Metro-North 120 102 4 14 System website

LIRR 124 123 1 System website

NJT 153 57 18 78 System website

SEPTA 154 currently transitioning to level boarding where 

possible, meaning numbers are changing frequently

System map, 

news articles, 

interview

Three of the systems in the Northeast already have high-level platforms at a majority of their 

stations (LIRR, Metro-North, and Shore Line East) and use level boarding for new and altered 

stations wherever it is feasible. The other three, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, and the MBTA, are 

currently transitioning their existing stations to level boarding where possible and using level 

boarding as their design standard for new stations.

The MBTA has made a majority of its stations accessible through either level boarding or minihighs. All new construction uses level boarding, including the entirety of the recently completed 

Greenbush Line and the proposed South Coast Rail. SEPTA is transitioning line-by-line and 

current capital projects include the construction of high-level platforms on the Doylestown line 

and mini-highs on the West Trenton line. New Jersey Transit has recently completed its 

accessibility requirements under the Key Station provision of the ADA, and has incorporated 

level boarding into new construction, such as the Meadowlands Sports Complex station.

Overall, while all of these systems do share with freight along some part of the system, they own 

or control large portions of their right-of-way and have adopted level boarding as their standard 
10

wherever possible, especially for new stations, in keeping with existing regulations. For 

agencies in this group, the draft final regulation therefore involves little change from existing 

regulations and agency practices and would not be expected to have any significant cost 

implications. Operational impacts should also be quite limited since these agencies are already 

accustomed to having passengers board and alight at high platforms. New Jersey Transit, for 

example, mentioned in its earlier docket comments that having enough bridgeplates to meet 

demand can be a problem, but it is one that they are addressing already. 

Overall cost impact of the rule for this group of commuter rail services:

No significant impacts were identified; these agencies’ existing practices and design standards 

meet or exceed the performance standard in the final rule. While several sets of docket 

comments cited potential staffing or operational costs, these were based on a previous version of 

the rule and are generally not relevant to the rule as it has been revised.

Table 3. Newer Systems Outside the Northeast

System Stations Level MiniHighStation 

Based 

Lift

Car 

Based 

Lifts

No 

Accessible 

Features

Source

Tri-Rail 18 18 System website

VRE 17 17 Interview

Coaster 8 8

Docket 

submission

ACE 9 9 System website

Albuquerque 12 12 System website

Nashville 6 6 System website

Sounder

10 10

System website 

and docket 

submission

Trinity 

Railway 

Express*

10 10

Interview

Portland

WES 5 5

System website

UTA Front 

Runner 13 13 Docket 

submission

Northstar 6 6 System website

Austin 9 9 System website

Metrolink 54 54 System website

*Has 2 mini-highs of two different sizes, one on each end of the platform, to 

accommodate different sized cars
11

For the newer systems listed in the table above, the picture is more varied. These systems were

built after the ADA was passed, and accessibility features were incorporated into system designs. 

However, because these services share track with freight services, they have (with some 

exceptions) been unable to use high platforms due to the refusal of freight railroads to permit 

their use because of clearance issues. As a result, all stations in these systems are accessible, but 

very few offer level boarding.

Specifically, more than three-quarters of the newer systems opted for mini-high platforms. Minihighs are generally placed consistently at one end of the platform (e.g. the northern end), 

enabling the railroads to place a conductor in the corresponding car to provide assistance at each 

stop, and giving passengers some certainty as to their ability to board and alight. Virginia 

Railway Express is the only system in this group to have adopted solely car-based lifts.

Two systems were able to provide level boarding. In Portland, OR, gauntlet tracks were built to 

accommodate freight movements through station areas, while Austin purchased low-floor nonFRA compliant cars (i.e., cars that do not meet safety standards for operating in mixed 

passenger-freight traffic) that provide level boarding on low platforms. (In some ways, the 

Austin system is more akin to a light rail system, but it runs on existing freight rail tracks, 

operates during peak periods only, and is usually classified as commuter rail. There is time-based 

separation from freight service to ensure safety.) 

Under the current regulations, systems that use mini-highs are required to double stop only if the 

accessible spaces in the car(s) aligned with the mini-high are full. The new regulation states that 

“individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, must have access to all 

accessible cars in each train using the station.” This implies that if the cars in the consist that are 

not aligned with the mini-high are also accessible (i.e., excluding certain 1950s-era vehicles that

do not offer sufficient interior clearance for a wheelchair user) the train crew would be expected 

to honor a request from a passenger with a disability to board one of those other cars from the 

mini-high, even if this requires double-stopping. (Otherwise, there would not be equal access to 

those other cars.) Honoring these requests would be a relatively infrequent occurrence: in most 

cases the disabled passenger would naturally prefer to board at the first opportunity rather than 

wait for re-positioning, and the rule applies only at new or altered stations, rather than systemwide. 

Based on interviews with commuter railroads, the potential for additional double-stopping does 

not appear to pose staffing or operational concerns. Tri-Rail and Trinity Railway Express, both 

of which use mini-highs and consider their disabled ridership to be high relative to other 

commuter railroads, stated in interviews that the affected population is still so small (around 

0.5% of ridership) that such requests would be very infrequent, and that the time needed for 

occasional repositioning (about 90 seconds, as noted in the MBTA’s docket submittal) is within 

scheduling tolerances and would not have significant impacts on operations, on-time 

performance, or costs. (Such a delay might be problematic for railroads that operate on much 

tighter timetables, for example along the busy Northeast Corridor, but railroads on these 

corridors generally use level boarding rather than mini-high platforms.) 
12

Given the limited number of such stops that would realistically be required, the occasional 

double-stop is within the normal variation of travel times for most commuter rail trips, and 

indeed must be planned for even under current rules, which require double-stopping whenever

the accessible seating area is fully occupied. The costs in terms of additional travel time for 

commuter rail passengers have thus not been quantified here because of the small magnitudes 

involved, though they are noted in the summary section below.

Additionally, VRE, because it uses lift-equipped coaches, must, under the new regulation, ensure 

that all accessible cars that serve new stations are lift-equipped. Currently, 64 out of the 70 cars

that it operates daily are lift-equipped, and VRE is planning to replace those few older cars as 

funds become available. In an interview, VRE stated that it does not anticipate any additional

costs from the rule, since they share with freight services and expect to have a 100% liftequipped fleet by the time any new stations are built or existing stations renovated. Even if this 

is not the case, the older cars are inaccessible Budd bi-level cars, which appear to be excluded 

from the requirements of the rule.

Overall, based on the data collected and the interviews with railroads, the rule does not appear 

likely to have any significant impact on accessibility costs or operations for this group of 

railroads. All of the systems share with freight services, and as such would retain much of their 

existing flexibility to use alternatives to level boarding, albeit subject to FTA approval. 

Requirements to “double stop” on request at mini-high platforms did not generate concern about 

operational or cost implications. The one agency in this group that could potentially be affected, 

VRE, would likely still be in compliance with the rule and has already taken steps to move 

toward greater accessibility.

Overall cost impact of the rule for this group of commuter rail services:

No significant impacts were identified for this group. There is the potential for small increases 

in operating costs and passenger travel times from an increased number of double-stops at minihigh platforms. Several sets of docket comments noted these costs, but the resulting cost 

estimates provided were not useful because they were based on the incorrect assumption that all

cars of each train would need to stop at the mini-high at every station, rather than simply upon 

request of a disabled passenger at stations that are built or altered after the final rule takes effect.
13

Table 4. Other Existing Systems

System Stations Level MiniHighStation 

Based 

Lift

Car 

Based 

Lifts

No 

Accessible 

Features

Source

Metra

239 49 190

Interview and 

docket submission

South 

Shore Line 20 12 3 5

System map

Caltrain 32 5 19 19 8 System website

MARC

43 8 1 14 20

System map and 

website

Alaska 

Railroad 10 10 Docket submission

The five systems above are those that do not fit neatly into either of the two major categories 

previously discussed. Metra, in Chicago, is the third-busiest commuter railroad in the nation, 

with by far the most stations, some of which use street-level boarding. Its commitment to 

providing access from stations of all different heights has led it to use the car-based lift as its 

primary accessibility approach. Metra has equipped 60% of its fleet with carborne lifts, so that 

three cars in a five-car consist are accessible. The other cars are Budd bi-level cars from the 

1960s and 1970s, whose interiors are not accessible. Based on our interview and a review of 

Metra’s vehicle inventory, it appears that all Metra cars in service are either lift-equipped or are 

pre-1980 vehicles with inaccessible interiors. Metra plans to have its fleet fully accessible by 

2030 by buying new cars and phasing out the Budd cars. 

One of Metra’s eleven lines, the Metra Electric, already has level boarding at its 49 stations.2 All

other Metra lines are shared with freight. Metra’s application of this accessibility approach to 

any new and altered stations would therefore appear to be consistent with the rule: it already 

provides level boarding on the line not shared with freight, and on the others it is moving toward 

full access via carborne lifts. While not all of its cars are accessible, the language in the rule that 

passengers must have access to “all accessible cars” anticipates situations such as this, where the 

only cars that cannot be accessed (i.e. the remaining Budd cars) are themselves inherently

inaccessible.

The South Shore Line, operated by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, from 

Chicago to Northern Indiana is the last remaining interurban line. It runs on Metra Electric’s

track, with high level platforms, for a little over half its run before running almost like a trolley

through the streets to South Bend Airport. While on the Metra Electric line and at the airport

terminus, it has high platforms, and three stations have lifts, but five stops have no accessibility

 

2

Some non-Key Stations on this line nonetheless remain inaccessible, because they lack elevators or other means to 

move from street level to the elevated platform, but they all offer level boarding. Regulations regarding station 

access, as distinct from the platform-vehicle interface, are not being changed by the proposed rule.
14

features, including several where boarding is from the street level. Under both the current rule

and the draft final rule, if those stations are altered, the NICTD will need to at least add a stationbased lift and develop a plan to staff and operate it, or provide level boarding if there are no 

freight conflicts.

MARC Train and Caltrain have a number of similarities. They both took over passenger lines 

from freight railroads in the 1980s, just before the passage of the ADA, making them more 

similar to the older systems of the Northeast when it comes to accessibility. MARC uses a 

combination of level boarding, mini-highs and station based lifts, while Caltrain uses mini-highs, 

car-based lifts, and station based lifts. MARC still has a number of inaccessible stations that will 

need to be made accessible when they are refurbished at the end of their lifespan. However, this 

requirement exists under the current rule as well as under the draft final rule, and both rules 

would require level boarding in cases where there are no freight clearance conflicts.

According to its website, Caltrain only deploys car-based lifts at certain accessible stations where 

it also has station-based lifts, and not all of its cars are lift-equipped. As Caltrain refurbishes its

existing inaccessible platforms, it would, at a minimum, need to add a station-based lift at each 

station, at a cost of $8,550 per lift. Again, however, this would need to occur under both the 

current and the draft final regulations. One difference would be that under the draft final rule, 

the lift would need to be mobile (portable) to permit access to all cars, but mobile lifts are widely 

available and do not appear to command any price premium over lifts that are not portable. 

Caltrain staff said in an interview that they would ideally like to transition to mini-highs, but due 

to funding constraints, they do not envision that in the near term. 

The last system is the Alaska Railroad, which runs a unique combination of passenger and 

freight services; it is classified as commuter railroad for certain reporting purposes (e.g., the 

APTA Factbook) even though most of its passenger services are long-distance and vary

seasonally. The Alaska Railroad currently serves 10 stations (plus flag stops on some routes), 

with accessibility via station-based lifts. They are considering a more conventional commuter 

rail service in Anchorage with five stations using diesel multiple units (DMUs) and wheelchair 

ramps or mini-highs. Alaska Railroad was the only railroad to suggest potential cost savings 

from the draft final regulation compared to existing rules. They have proposed station upgrades 

at three stations, two in preparation for the commuter rail service, and were told by FTA that 

they needed to provide level boarding (by building gauntlet tracks, if necessary) if they modified

the platforms. Because they share with freight along the length of their corridor, their 

understanding of the new rule is that it would allow them to find other ways to provide access on 

their projects. This would need to be confirmed, but suggests that the draft final rule would at 

least not have any negative cost implications compared to the current baseline. (Alaska Railroad 

also expressed concern about which agency, FRA or FTA, would review its proposed 

accessibility plans under the draft final rule.)

In summary, for this group of railroads, there is again no significant cost impact from the 

regulation. Metra plans to continue its use car-based lifts on the 10 of 11 lines that are shared

with freight services and increase the percentage of accessible cars over time, and the South 

Shore Line, MARC, and Caltrain will require essentially the same set of accessibility upgrades 

under both the current and draft final regulation. In an interview, Alaska Railroad expressed hope 
15

that the rule will allow them to move forward on projects by providing other options for 

providing access. 

Overall cost impact of the rule for this group of commuter rail services:

No significant impacts were identified because the accessibility improvements that these 

railroads would need to make at new or altered stations under the final rule are essentially the 

same as those required under current regulations. Docket comments citing other costs were 

based on the prior version of the rule and are generally no longer applicable.

Table 5. Proposed Systems

System Stations Level MiniHighStation 

Based 

Lift

Car 

Based 

Lifts

No 

Accessible 

Features

Source

Sonoma 

Marin 

Area Rail 

Transit

13 13 Interview

Ann 

ArborDetroit

6 6 Project documents via

SE Michigan Council 

of Governments

website

KRM

Wisconsin

Commuter 

Rail

9 9 Project website

Denver 

FasTracks

28 22 6 Interview

SunRail 12 12 12 Interview

Denton 

County ATrain

6 6 Project website

In addition to the 24 systems already in operation, there are a number of systems in the planning, 

design, and construction stages. Of those, there are six which are likely to see some degree of 

operation within the 10-year analysis period. One is Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), 

which will run DMUs to 13 stations in Sonoma and Marin counties. They are currently planning 

to provide level boarding via gauntlet tracks and are working closely with Portland, Oregon, in 

their planning process. Southeast Michigan would like to see commuter rail between Detroit and 

Ann Arbor, on a shared freight line. Right now, they are exploring station-based lifts as an 

opportunity to start quickly with refurbished cars from Amtrak. Kenosha, Racine, and 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, (KRM) are seeking funding for an extension of a Metra line from 

Kenosha to Milwaukee, providing access not only to Chicago but also from suburban Milwaukee 

into the city center. This line would use Metra’s lift-equipped cars. Sun Rail is Orlando’s 
16

planned commuter line, which is planning to operate lift-equipped cars but also have mini-highs. 

The Denton County A-train will use the same cars as Austin’s Capitol Metro to provide lowfloor level boarding. Because all of these lines share with freight (except for Denton County,

which is planning for level boarding) their accessibility approaches should be acceptable under 

the rule, with no difference in costs compared to existing regulations. 

The most complex new system is Denver’s FasTracks program, which is also the only system 

that reported back a significant cost from the regulation. The commuter rail portion of the 

FasTracks program will consist of four lines, three of which will not share with freight. The three 

lines that will not share with freight will have high-level boarding. The fourth line is used by

BNSF and routinely carries over-dimensional freight, posing alleged clearance issues for high 

platforms. Although a final decision on accessibility has not yet been made, FasTracks is leaning 

towards using car-based lifts. Currently, they are planning to equip 9 cars, or a third of their fleet, 

with lifts. Each lift costs $50,000 to install (see cost estimates below), and each car requires one 

lift on each side, at a total cost of $100,000 per car. Equipping these 9 cars with lifts would cost 

roughly $900,000. Under the new rule, which requires access to all accessible cars, FasTracks

would need to equip the remaining 18 cars at an incremental cost of $1.8 million. 

Overall cost impact of the rule for this group of commuter rail services:

An estimated $1.8 million in cost impacts due to need to equip additional cars on Denver’s 

Northwest Line with lifts. 

Additional Unit Cost Information 

During the interviews, we gathered cost estimates of the various methods of providing 

accessibility. The range of reported costs is summarized below. 

 Mini-high platform: Costs cited ranged from $30,000 (SunRail, planned costs) to

$400,000 (MBTA, reported costs for a mini-high being constructed at Wedgemere 

Station, out of a total project cost of $2 million).3 The differences between these figures

may be the result of different platform size and design standards, differing site constraints 

and labor costs, and/or weather conditions and the corresponding need for durability. 

 High-level platform: Estimates here ranged widely. Metrolink estimates that it would cost 

$1 million to make its mini-high platforms high-level, while the MBTA estimated $8-10 

million, which includes the cost of demolition for the old platform, and ramping, 

canopies, and structures for the new one. Most estimates were around $5-6 million, 

though Caltrans said they could build a double-sided platform with shelters and parking 

for $3 million.

 Low-level platform: $4.1 to $5.5 million. 

 Lift-equipped car: $2.4 million (VRE) to $5.2 million (Denver). The incremental cost of 

adding a lift appears to be $50,000 per lift (Denver, SunRail, Metra) or $100,000 per car 

in cases where both sides of the vehicle require a lift. 

 

3 MBTA Board Meeting Notes, January 6, 2010, http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/board_meetings/, and 

Assistant General Manager’s comments, http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2010/02/wedgemere.html.
17

 Mobile station-based lift: $8,550, according to a price quote from Adaptive Engineering, 

Inc., a manufacturer. 

 Gauntlet tracks: Estimates ranged from $0.7 million (SMART) to $15 million (MTA). 

After analyzing the estimates, the costs appear to break down as roughly $1 million for 

platform and track laying, $2 million to install a signal with Positive Train Control 

capabilities, and additional costs for right-of-way acquisition, which varies widely

according to local land values.

Proposed Expansions

From the APTA route database and interviews, we gathered information on other proposed 

routes, and found others via online research. Table 6, below, includes the plans we found that 

have begun the funding process. Some, like the new station for Shore Line East, are very likely 

to be constructed in the near future, while others, like Nashville’s 5 additional commuter rail 

lines, have been planned but are currently awaiting funding, demand estimates, or broader 

community support. Using the cost data we acquired from interviews and docket submissions, 

we made estimates of the impact on potential expansions. (The MBTA’s estimate of $8-10 

million per high platform was not used with respect to planned new construction, because that 

estimate included significant costs for demolition of the existing low platform and for canopies 

and other elements that are not required by the rule.)

Table 6. Proposed Expansions 

System Planned 

Extensions

Planned 

New 

Stations

Accessibility 

mode

Potential Impact of Draft Final Rule

MBTA South 

Coast Rail 

8 Level

boarding

None. Already planning level boarding

Shore Line

East

new 

Westbrook 

station

1 Level 

boarding

None. Already planning level boarding

VRE 7 Car-based lift None. All expansions are on freight tracks

and nearly all accessible cars in regular 

service are lift-equipped.

Tri-Rail 14 Mini-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks

Coaster Infill 1 Mini-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks

Albuquerque Infill 2 Mini-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks

Nashville 5 other 

lines

~30 Mini-high Likely no impact – see discussion below

Sounder 2 Mini-high None. Line shares with freight

Portland Salem 

extension

3 Level

boarding

None. Already planning level boarding.
18

System Planned 

Extensions

Planned 

New 

Stations

Accessibility 

mode

Potential Impact of Draft Final Rule

SunRail Phase II 5 Mini-high 

and car based 

lift

None. All expansions are on freight tracks

Northstar St. Cloud 4 Mini-high None. All expansions are on freight tracks

Fort Worth sw2ne 15 Not yet 

determined

Shares with freight, so the only change 

would be ensuring that lifts are on all cars if 

they plan to use car-borne lifts

Austin to San 

Antonio

Lone Star 

Rail

16 Not yet 

determined

Likely no impact – see discussion below

Metra Two 

proposed 

extensions 

and two 

new lines

~33 Either car 

based lift or 

level

boarding

Likely no impact – see discussion below. 

Alaska 

Railroad

Anchorage 

Commuter 

Rail

5 Mini-high or 

wheelchair 

ramp

None. All expansions are on freight tracks

In Nashville and Austin-San Antonio, decisions have not yet been made on whether the planned 

new services would run on freight-shared track or newly built dedicated track. In the former 

case, the rule would have no cost impact since (with FTA approval) the railroads could use minihigh platforms, as Nashville already does, or another acceptable approach. In the latter case, the 

railroads would need to provide level boarding, which would entail additional construction costs 

for high platforms. However, level boarding is already required by current regulation wherever 

it is feasible, so there is no net difference between the requirements of the draft final rule and the 

current rule.

Analysis of Metra’s expansion plans is complicated slightly by the fact that one planned segment 

of new track will not be shared with freight. Because the draft final regulation makes its 

exception in cases where the “line or system” (not segment) shares station-area track with 

existing freight services, the current approach appears to be acceptable. Conversely, if this 

segment is viewed as a distinct line that does not share with freight, then level boarding would be 

required under the draft final rule, as it would be under the current rules (unless infeasible).

Either way, there is no net impact from the draft final rule. 

Overall cost impact of the rule for this group of commuter rail services:

No significant impacts were identified because the accessibility features planned for these 

expansions appear to meet the performance standard of the final rule.
19

Commuter Rail Summary

Overall, few railroads reported any significant cost implications from the rule in terms of station 

construction or rolling stock. In large part this is due to the similarity of the rule to existing 

requirements, and the provisions for services that share with freight trains. However, systems 

that use carborne lifts as their accessibility approach will need to purchase more accessible 

equipment (or accelerate their planned replacement of non-lift equipped vehicles) to ensure that 

access to all cars is available. Total incremental costs were estimated at $1.8 million.

Reported operational impacts were also quite limited due to the modest nature of the changes. 

The most likely impact would be additional double-stopping at mini-high platforms, with 

railroad staff describing this as a minor concern due to the relatively infrequent requests that 

would be received. Agencies that make use of level boarding are already addressing staffing 

issues related to the use of bridgeplates.

Likewise, the costs of FTA review and approval were not perceived to be significant, because of 

the review cycles that are built into the existing planning process for stations and services. (This 

could be different for one planned service, the Denton County A-Train, which does not plan to 

seek Federal funding, except that this service already plans to use level boarding.)

Several agencies noted or implied that the cost of accessibility features had led them to avoid 

non-essential alterations at some stations, to avoid “triggering” accessibility requirements at nonKey Stations. This had led to a somewhat degraded environment at some stations, reducing the 

attractiveness of the rail service. To the extent that the rule would further increase the 

accessibility-related costs of station alteration, this trend would be exacerbated, but again most 

railroads would not experience any major differences.
20

Analysis: Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation

Background: Amtrak Accessibility Status and Projects

Intercity passenger rail service in the U.S. is provided primarily by the National Rail Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak), a government-owned corporation established for this purpose.4 Amtrak 

serves over 500 stations, with total ridership of just over 27 million in fiscal 2009. The majority

of Amtrak’s route-mileage runs on track owned by freight railroads, particularly on its longdistance routes. However, Amtrak (and state agencies that work in partnership with Amtrak) 

owns the heavily traveled Boston-Washington Northeast Corridor as well as smaller passenger 

rail corridors in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Amtrak’s standards for platform heights relate to the floor height of the equipment that serves the 

stations. On the Northeast Corridor and certain other locations, platforms are high-level 

(48”ATR), with level boarding. On other routes, platform heights are typically 8” ATR or lower, 

and accessibility, where it exists, is typically via a platform-based lift, though there are some 

mini-high platforms in use. A small number of stations also handle equipment with different 

floor heights and use a combination of platform heights and lifts.

Although many accessibility regulations apply only to new or altered facilities, Section 12162(e) 

of the ADA contains a separate requirement that all existing intercity rail stations be made 

accessible to persons with disabilities by July 26, 2010. For purposes of the ADA, a “station” 

generally consists of property used by the general public and related to the provision of rail 

transportation, including passenger platforms, designated waiting areas, ticketing areas, 

restrooms, but not flag stops (stations at which Amtrak stops only on passenger request). 

Amtrak did not meet the 2010 deadline but continues to work toward the requirement. Section 

219 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) required Amtrak to 

evaluate the condition of intercity stations that it serves and to report to Congress on: 

improvements needed to make such stations compliant with the ADA; potential barriers to 

achieving compliance; the identification of parties responsible for compliance; the costs 

associated with needed improvements; and the dates when such improvements can be made. 

Amtrak provided a report to Congress on February 1, 2009 entitled Intercity Rail Stations Served 

by Amtrak, A Report on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990. A supplemental report was issued in October 2010 to update Congress on progress that 

Amtrak has made toward compliance with the ADA at stations it serves through 2010 and to 

describe plans for 2011.5

 

4 Amtrak remains the nation’s sole provider of intercity passenger rail services. A number of small “heritage” 

railways and dinner trains continue to operate over short distances for educational and recreational purposes rather 

than inter-city transportation as such. Recently, some states have also discussed the option of using other rail 

authorities and providers for planned high-speed service, but no other entities are providing such service at this time. 

5

Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, October 27, 2010. 

http://origin.www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid

=1241245669222
21

Based on the latest data from these reports, there are now 482 Amtrak-served stations that are 

required to be ADA compliant. Of these, Amtrak has full responsibility for ADA compliance for 

341 platforms, shared responsibility for 64 platforms, and no responsibility for 77 platforms. In 

Amtrak’s reports, stations were described as “not accessible,” “fully accessible,” or as having 

“barrier-free access” to platforms and trains. This last category covers situations where 

passengers with mobility impairments, including wheelchair users, can move from the street or 

parking facility to the platform and board the train, yet certain elements of the station (e.g. 

restrooms) continue to be inaccessible. (Note that none of these designations is equivalent to 

“ADA compliant,” which includes other features such as ADA-compliant signage, accessible 

train information display systems6, and tactile detectable warning strips.)

Of the 482 Amtrak served stations that must be made accessible, Amtrak determined that 191 

would not be fully accessible in 2011, including 65 that would not even have barrier-free access 

in 2011. Amtrak’s comprehensive Accessible Stations Development Plan assessed the costs 

associated with making each of these stations accessible to, and usable by, persons with 

disabilities. These costs include a modest figure for condition improvements due to deferred 

maintenance or for bringing stations up to state of good repair (SGR) where necessary. A station 

in disrepair poses challenges that disproportionately affect travelers with disabilities. Therefore, 

in the context of rail stations, SGR work is integral to ADA work because in most instances, 

ADA improvements do not benefit passengers with disabilities unless the facility itself is in 

acceptable operating condition. Amtrak’s calculations were based on Amtrak’s Guidelines on 

Platform Design, which generally calls for 48” ATR platforms on the Northeast Corridor and 8” 

ATR platforms on other routes. Amtrak’s report notes that portable wheelchair lifts are the 

standard approach to providing access to trains from the low platforms typically used outside the 

Northeast Corridor. Cost estimates are based on procurement of portable wheelchair lifts and 

wheelchair lift enclosures/protective sheds, and their installation at platforms. Amtrak also 

notes, however, that selected stations will use mini-high platforms instead of portable wheelchair 

lifts. It further notes that in some station environments, these are intended only as temporary

improvements, while in others they are intended as permanent. 

Based on these assumptions, Amtrak estimated the platform-related costs of making these 191

stations accessible at $182 million, or $44 million for just the set of 65 stations that lack barrierfree access. These estimates are based on the current set of regulations and do not include any

potential impacts of the rule.

 

6 Amtrak has Passenger Information Display Systems (PIDS) at many stations, but not all of those systems are fully 

ADA compliant. Amtrak has developed a fully compliant PIDS that provide both audio and visual messages for 

passengers – including passengers who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind or visually impaired. Amtrak intends to 

deploy PIDS system-wide, providing real-time train status information and emergency messages controlled from 

Amtrak’s information technology system.
22

Table 7. Amtrak-Estimated Costs of Station Platform Accessibility Under Current Law 

and Regulations

Stations that Must be Made ADA Compliant 482

Stations not Fully Accessible in 2011 191

Amtrak Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars)

ADA $173,463,000

State of Good Repair $8,623,000

Total $182,086,000

Stations not Barrier Free in 2011 65

Amtrak Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars)

ADA $41,797,000

State of Good Repair $2,001,000

Total $43,798,000

Potential Cost Implications of Draft Final Rule

As noted in Amtrak’s report, the railroad plans an extensive effort to renovate stations over the 

next 5 years to improve accessibility. These alterations would trigger the requirements of the 

rule to the extent that they occurred after the rule’s implementation date. In general, Amtrak’s 

current and proposed accessibility approach – i.e., level boarding on the Northeast Corridor and 

other passenger corridors, and mobile platform-based lifts at other stations where track is shared 

with freight – appears to meet the performance standard of the rule. 

Under the rule, FRA approval would be required for new or altered stations where level boarding

is not planned. Amtrak staff noted that FRA already reviews Amtrak’s plans for platform-related 

work under the terms of Amtrak’s funding agreement. However, the current agreement allows 

Amtrak to proceed with work unless FRA raises an objection in a timely manner. The review 

provisions of the draft final rule now require that Amtrak receive affirmative FRA approval of a 

non-level boarding solution at a given station. Depending on the working relationship between 

Amtrak and FRA, this requirement could impose some small administrative costs and/or project 

delays for Amtrak.

The other area for potential cost implications would be in cases where track is not shared with 

freight and yet Amtrak plans for low platforms with mobile lifts rather than level boarding. In 

email correspondence, Amtrak reported typical construction costs of $2,200 per linear foot for 8” 

ATR platforms, versus $4,100 per linear foot for 48” ATR platforms. For a typical 1200-foot 

platform, this equates to approximately $2.3 million in incremental costs for each station that 

might require high platforms (or $1.3 million for the 700-foot platforms used in short-corridor 

service.) The additional cost per linear foot includes not only higher material costs due to the 

larger structure size but also the need for accessible ramps, stairs, and railings that come with a 

higher platform. 
23

We attempted to assess the number of stations where this situation might exist, using information 

from Amtrak’s report7on platform ownership. This indicated whether a platform was owned by

a freight railroad or another non-freight entity such as a local government, state DOT, or 

commuter rail agency. In those cases where a freight railroad owned the platforms, it was 

assumed that the freight railroad operated freight trains on those tracks. Ownership of tracks was 

corroborated with the National Atlas of the United States.

8 Amtrak’s latest system timetable 

(Fall 2010/Winter 2011) was also checked as a source of data on services and the status of 

barrier-free and accessible stations.

This information allowed us to determine an upper bound estimate on the number of stations 

potentially affected by the rule in the near term, i.e. those stations that Amtrak plans to renovate, 

and where existing freight service may not be present. Our analysis yielded a total of 34 such 

stations, of which 15 lack barrier-free access, with the rest having barrier-free access that is less 

than fully accessible (full list in the Appendix).

This station count must be considered as an upper bound estimate – it cannot be assumed that 

freight trains do not operate through those stations solely because the freight railroad does not 

own the platform/tracks. Amtrak staff stated that information on freight train passage is not kept 

in database form and would require station-by-station research on operating rights. Anecdotally, 

a number of the stations on the list are known to have at least occasional freight service, and 

many others are on the Northeast Corridor or other state-owned passenger corridors where level 

boarding is standard. Some (such as Woburn, Mass.) have even had high-level platforms added 

after the compilation date of the Amtrak report. Moreover, the rule makes its exception for 

freight in cases where freight service uses station-area track on that line or system, not just at the 

station in question.

With these limitations in mind, we compiled Amtrak’s own station-level cost estimates for this 

subset of 34 stations that may or may not have freight service. Amtrak estimates that 

improvement costs for these platforms would total about $13 million to $39 million, as shown in 

the table below. The lower figure is for platforms at the smaller group of stations that do not 

have barrier-free access. The higher figure also includes stations which do have barrier free 

access but are not fully accessible. These estimates are based on Amtrak’s calculations and the 

current set of accessibility regulations.

 

7

Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990

8 US Department of the Interior, Railroads of the United States. http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mld/railrdl.html
24

Table 8. Stations Potentially Affected by the Rule: 

Amtrak Stations to be Renovated Where Freight Service May Not Be Present

Stations not Fully Accessible in 2011 191

Of These, Stations that May Not Have Freight Railroad Service 34

Amtrak-Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars)

ADA $36,767,000

State of Good Repair $2,149,000

Total $38,916,000

Stations not Barrier Free in 2011 65

Of These, Stations that May Not Have Freight Railroad Service 15

Amtrak-Estimated Cost to Make These Platforms Fully Accessible (2009 dollars)

ADA $12,432,000

State of Good Repair $799,000

Total $13,231,000

Under the rule, the cost of accessibility improvements would exceed Amtrak’s published 

estimates by $1.3 to $2.3 million per station wherever the following are true: (1) the station is on 

a line that is not shared with freight, and thus level boarding would be required under the rule, 

and (2) Amtrak’s cost estimation is based on a (less expensive) low platform with mobile 

platform lift, rather than a full-length high platform. Ultimately, it was not possible to identify

the specific stations where these conditions might exist, because Amtrak’s report cited general 

design standards and station size categories rather than station-by-station accessibility plans, and 

because Amtrak did not have station-specific information about freight movements readily 

available. More to the point, however, at any station where level boarding might be 

required under the new rule, it would also be required under existing regulations, unless 

technically infeasible. Therefore, while accessibility costs under the new rule could, for a 

handful of stations, conceivably exceed what Amtrak has estimated in its reports, the costs are 

essentially the same as what would be required under current regulations.

High-Speed and Expanded Intercity Passenger Rail

In addition to current Amtrak services, several states and regions have high-speed rail projects in 

the planning or design stages, funded through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) 

program and other initiatives. These services would involve multiple new or renovated stations 

that could be affected by the requirements of the new rule. In general, high-speed rail services

almost always employ level boarding as their means of access because it minimizes station dwell 

time. For example, the New Haven – Springfield corridor, which received HSIPR funding, plans 

to use level boarding at all stations.9

Therefore, the rule is not expected to have any impact on these planned high-speed services, 

because they would use level boarding irrespective of the requirements of the rule. They would 

also be required to use level boarding, even under current regulations, unless it were not 

technically feasible. Existing FRA guidance for grantees, while not strictly binding on all 

 

9 Connecticut DOT bulletin, Spring 2009, http://www.nhhsrail.com/PDF/Newsletter_final.pdf. 
25

projects, has also recommended the use of high platforms for high-speed services: “[T]he 

platform height should be equal to the car floor height. It is recognized that high-level platforms 

may, on a site-specific basis, entail facilities to protect freight operations (e.g., “gantlet” 

tracks).”

10

 

Cost Summary

In general, the analysis indicates that cost impacts of the rule will be limited to a very small 

subset of new and altered commuter and inter-city passenger rail stations – namely, those that 

use an accessibility approach that would be acceptable under current regulations but not under 

the draft final regulations, such as providing carborne lifts on some (but not all) cars. Among 

current and planned commuter rail systems, these situations are few, and the required changes 

are relatively minor (e.g., an additional $100,000 per rail car for lifts, or about 2% of the car’s

$5.2 million purchase price). Total compliance costs were estimated at about $1.8 million. 

There would also be some small operational cost impacts at a few systems where additional 

double-stopping would be required at any new or altered mini-high platforms.

An additional set of potential impacts comes from a set of no more than 34 Amtrak stations that 

do not share with freight services but for which level boarding may not currently planned as part 

of the railroad’s accessibility capital program. In these cases, however, level boarding is already

required by current regulations wherever it is technically and operationally feasible. Therefore, 

there should be no change to the cost of the improvements under the rule, even if these costs 

exceed Amtrak’s published estimates. Amtrak would also experience some administrative costs 

and potential project delays from the final rule’s requirement for FRA approval of accessibility

plans at new stations.

It was not possible to speak with representatives from every commuter railroad in the U.S. due to

time and resource constraints and the restrictions of the PRA. Therefore, the discussion of likely

impacts and costs should not be viewed as exhaustive, though for the reasons noted above, the

available data and the many operational similarities between railroads make it possible to 

forecast the general nature of the impacts with a reasonable degree of certainty even for railroads 

that were not contacted directly.

 

10

 Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Development, Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans: A 

Guidance Manual, rev. July 8, 2005, p.5.
26

Benefits Discussion

Background

As noted above, the rule is primarily aimed at promoting equal access to transportation services 

as a matter of civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conventional benefits such 

as travel-time savings or reductions in transportation-related injuries are relatively modest, as the 

rule’s provisions are aimed at a minority within the population. That being said, a large number 

of Americans have mobility impairments that affect their use of rail transportation. 

Approximately 3.3 million Americans (1.4 percent of the population) use a wheelchair or similar 

device, and another 10.2 million (4.4 percent) use another type of mobility aid, such as a cane, 

walker, or crutches.11 Commuter railroads contacted in the course of this study indicated that 

roughly 0.5 percent of their ridership consists of wheelchair users. Amtrak statistics for fiscal 

year 2008 show that the railroad transported approximately 175,000 passengers who declared 

themselves as disabled and indicated that they would need the use of wheelchairs – about 0.6% 

of total ridership. Amtrak estimates that approximately 9,000 other passengers who were 

mobility-impaired did not declare themselves as disabled when they made a reservation.12

Improved barrier free platform/train access benefits a population that extends beyond those of 

wheelchair users. According to the latest available Census data, of the 291.1 million people in 

the 2005 population of the United States, 54.4 million, or 18.7 percent, reported some level of 

disability. Of people aged 15 and older, 27.4 million (11.9 percent) had difficulty with 

ambulatory activities of the lower body. About 21.8 million people (9.4 percent) had difficulty 

climbing a flight of stairs. Roughly 3.3 million people (1.4 percent) used a wheelchair or similar 

device and 10.2 million (4.4 percent) used a cane, crutches, or walker to assist with mobility. In 

addition, improved accessibility benefits many other passengers, such as those travelling with 

small children, infants in strollers, or carry-on luggage. 

Amtrak ridership among persons with disabilities has generally been growing (see table below 

for 2001-2005 statistics). In 2005, 223,996 passengers, or just under 1% of ridership, took 

advantage of the reservations service available to passengers with disabilities and their 

companions. The actual total may be higher, as some passengers with disabilities either do not 

make advance reservations or do not identify themselves as passengers with disabilities.13

 

 

11 US Bureau of the Census, Americans with Disabilities, 2005.

12

 Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, A Report on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, February 1, 2009.

13

 Before the Department of Transportation, Docket OST-2006-23985, Transportation for Individuals with 

Disabilities, Comments of National Rail Passenger Corporation, July 28, 2006.
27

Table 9. Passengers with Disabilities Data: Ridership

Calendar Year 2001 to 2005

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Passengers with Disabilities 96,826 103,606 117,633 133,337 143,971

Passengers with Mobility Impairment 55,289 51,509 55,790 57,551 57,436

Companions 17,488 16,571 19,427 20,909 22,590

Total 169,603 171,686 192,850 211,797 223,996

Benefits

The rule will ensure that travelers with disabilities will be able to access all cars of each train at 

new and altered rail stations, and that level boarding will be employed wherever it is not 

precluded by freight clearance. Although in many situations the rule does not differ greatly from 

existing regulations or practices, the general effect will be to move rail services in the direction 

of improved accessibility. 

The rule’s use of an objective standard (i.e., the presence or absence of freight service) for 

requiring level boarding, rather than the current standard of “technically feasible,” arguably gives 

greater clarity and predictability to rail providers regarding what is expected in each situation. By

including an FRA/FTA review cycle in accessibility plans (other than for level boarding) it also 

ensures that these determinations are made fairly. The rule also anticipates the need for

continued freight movements and provides railroads with flexibility in meeting the accessibility

performance standard in these cases.

Overall, the primary benefits of the rule’s move toward additional accessibility are as follows:

 First, the ability to access all cars will promote a more integrated transportation setting, 

in which passengers with disabilities will less frequently be limited to particular 

boarding or alighting locations. In particular, in cases where level boarding is used, 

travelers who use wheelchairs will be able to board the train in essentially the same 

manner as all other passengers and with only minimal intervention from staff. This is 

in keeping with the intent of ADA and other legislation to ensure that persons with 

disabilities are not unnecessarily treated differently from others.

 Second, providing access to all cars improves the robustness of the accessibility

approach, ensuring that passengers with disabilities can continue to access a train even 

if a particular lift or mini-high is out of service at that time. For example, in cases where 

only one car of each train is lift-equipped, a mechanical failure of that lift would make 

the service completely inaccessible. With all cars lift-equipped or with the use of level 

boarding, this problem is averted. This represents an important improvement to the de 

facto availability of transportation services for passengers with disabilities, improving 

their ability to reliably access jobs, appointments, and other destinations. For many

travelers with mobility impairments, access to inter-city passenger rail transportation is 

particularly important because of its role as an alternative to air travel, especially for 
28

travelers whose disabilities make it impractical or even impossible to use commercial 

air service.

 Third, the ability to access any car of the train can provide small travel-time savings 

and other benefits for passengers with disabilities, inasmuch as they can choose a car 

that is closer to their parking space, transfer point, or final destination. Although the 

differences are usually small, the layout of some stations is such that passengers must 

“backtrack” several hundred feet in order to use a mini-high or lift, and this distance 

can be quite onerous for travelers with some types of mobility impairments. Creating 

access to all cars also helps to ensure that passengers with disabilities have equal access 

to specialized cars, such as “quiet cars” where cellular telephone use is not permitted.

 Fourth, non-disabled passengers will also tend to benefit from increases in the use of 

level boarding because of reductions in station dwell time, which can improve travel 

time and reliability. Passengers with luggage, strollers, or other items also tend to find 

level boarding more convenient.
29

NOTES / REFERENCES

American Public Transportation Association, Public Transportation Factbook, 2010.

American Public Transportation Association, Public Transportation Infrastructure Database:

Commuter Rail Route Segment Table, December 2008.

National Atlas of the United States, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mld/railrdl.html

National Rail Passenger Corporation, Comments Before the Department of Transportation, 

Docket OST-2006-23985, Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities, July 28, 2006.

National Rail Passenger Corporation, Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, A Report on 

Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, February 1, 

2009.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update 

on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, October 27,

2010.

Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Development, Railroad Corridor 

Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manual, rev. July 8, 2005.

US Bureau of the Census, Americans with Disabilities, 2005.
30

INTERVIEWEES

Mary Ainsley, MBTA

John Bennett, Amtrak

Frank Billue, FTA Region 4

Michelle Bouchard, Caltrain

Tom Brooks, Alaska Railroad

Lynette Ciavarella, Metra

Bill Farquhar, TRE

KellyAnne Gallagher, APTA

Margaret Griffin, FTA Region 1

Joseph Giulietti, Tri-Rail

Todd Hammerle, SunRail

Christine Hoeffner, VRE

James Hughes, FTA Region 1

Matthew Keamy, FTA Region 1

John Lackey, SMART

Cynthia Lister, SEPTA

Maureen McCloskey, Paralyzed Veterans of America

D.J. Mitchell, BNSF

Joe Rago, Amtrak

Brett Rekola, NTCD

John Shonsey, FasTracks

Stan Szabelak, FasTracks

Scott Transue, NCTD

Kathy Waters, APTA

Warren Williams, SEPTA

Martin Young, Sounder
31

Appendix A

Amtrak’s Comments on the NPRM of 2006 provided additional data on platforms that then had 

high level platforms.14 This same document lists the type of Amtrak equipment stopping at each

station and their associated floor heights, and those stations where commuter rail equipment 

shares the platforms with the floor heights of the commuter rail equipment.

 

14

 Before the Department of Transportation, Docket OST-2006-23985, Transportation for Individuals with 

Disabilities, Comments of National Rail Passenger Corporation, July 28, 2006.
32

Amtrak Stations Potentially Affected by the Rule -- Might Not Have Freight Service & Not Barrier-Free in 2011

Costs of Platform 

Improvements (Thousands of 

2009 dollars)

Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and 

Shared Stations in 2006

Station State ADA Responsibility ADA State of 

Good 

Repair

Total Station 

Classification

Stations 

with 48" 

Platforms 

in 2006

Amtrak 

Equipment

Commuter 

Equipment

Nominal 

Floor Heights

Laguna Nigual CA SCRRA/Amtrak $263 $0 $263 Small-ShelterUnstaffed

San Clemente 

Pier 

CA Amtrak $549 $76 $625 Small-PlatformUnstaffedSurfliner Bombardier bi-level 18 & 35"

Mystic CT Amtrak $536 $85 $621 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet 51"

Wallingford CT Town of

Wallingford/Amtrak

$534 $13 $547 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet 51"

Windsor CT Amtrak $649 $23 $672 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet 51"

Newark DE Amtrak/DTC $296 $6 $302 Small-ShelterUnstaffedSuperliner Silverliners, 

Bombardier coach

51"

Woburn MA MBTA/Amtrak $256 $0 $256 SmallCaretakerAmfleet Pullman-Standard, 

Bombardier, MBB 

single level, Kawaski 

bi-level

51"

Dowagiac MI Amtrak $769 $44 $813 SmallCaretakerAmfleet, 

Horizon, 

Superliner

18 & 51"

New Buffalo MI City of New Buffalo $322 $0 $322 Small-ShelterUnstaffedHorizon, 

Superliner

18 & 51"

Ardmore PA SEPTA $1,430 $0 $1,430 SmallCaretakerAmfleet Silverliners, 

Bombardier coach

51"

Coatesville PA Amtrak $1,066 $18 $1,084 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet 51"

Downingtown PA SEPTA $1,519 $235 $1,754 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet Silverliners, 

Bombardier coach

51"

Elizabethtown PA Amtrak $1,217 $160 $1,377 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet 51"

Middletown PA Amtrak $1,563 $14 $1,577 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet 51"

Mount Joy PA Amtrak $1,463 $125 $1,588 Small-ShelterUnstaffedAmfleet 51"
33

Amtrak Stations Potentially Impacted by the Rule – Might Not Have Freight Service & Not Fully Accessible in 2011

Costs of Platform Improvements 

(Thousands of 2009 dollars)

Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and 

Shared Stations in 2006

Station State ADA Responsibility ADA

State of 

Good 

Repair Total

Station 

Classification

Stations 

with 48" 

Platforms 

in 2006

Amtrak 

Equipment

Commuter 

Equipment

Nominal 

Floor Heights

Chatsworth CA SCRRA/Amtrak $1,452 $0 $1,452

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Surfliner Bombardier bi-level 18, 35 & 51"

Laguna Nigual CA SCRRA/Amtrak $263 $0 $263

Small-ShelterUnstaffed

San Clemente 

Pier CA Amtrak $549 $76 $625

Small-PlatformUnstaffed Surfliner Bombardier bi-level 18 & 35"

San Diego - Old 

Town CA NCTD $592 $18 $610

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Surfliner Bombardier bi-level 18 & 35"

Solano Beach CA NCTD $1,969 $0 $1,969 Medium-Staffed Surfliner Bombardier bi-level 18 & 35"

Berlin CT Amtrak $258 $1 $259 Medium-Staffed Amfleet 51"

Hartford CT Amtrak $1,713 $763 $2,476 Medium-Staffed Amfleet 51"

Meriden CT Amtrak $901 $0 $901 Medium-Staffed Amfleet 51"

Mystic CT Amtrak $536 $85 $621

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Amfleet 51"

New Haven CT State of Connecticut $739 $0 $739 Large-Staffed Y Acela, Amfleet 51"

New London CT Amtrak $1,043 $0 $1,043 Medium-Staffed

Y (also 

8") Acela, Amfleet Comet 51"

Wallingford CT

Town of 

Wallingford/Amtrak $534 $13 $547

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Amfleet 51"

Windsor CT Amtrak $649 $23 $672

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Amfleet 51"

Newark DE Amtrak/DTC $296 $6 $302

Small-ShelterUnstaffed SuperlinerSilverliners, 

Bombardier coach 51"

Wilmington DE Amtrak/DELDOT $726 $0 $726 Large-Staffed

Y (also 

8")

Acela, Amfleet, 

Heritage, 

Viewliner

Silverliners, 

Bombardier coach 51"

Boston-Back 

Bay MA MBTA $2,981 $53 $3,034 Medium-Staffed Y Acela, Amfleet

Pullman-Standard, 

Bombardier, MBB 

single level, Kawaski

bi-level 51"

Springfield MA Amtrak $1,649 $84 $1,733 Large-Staffed Amfleet 51"
34

Costs of Platform Improvements 

(Thousands of 2009 dollars)

Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and 

Shared Stations in 2006

Station State ADA Responsibility ADA

State of 

Good 

Repair Total

Station 

Classification

Stations 

with 48" 

Platforms 

in 2006

Amtrak 

Equipment

Commuter 

Equipment

Nominal 

Floor Heights

Woburn MA MBTA/Amtrak $256 $0 $256 Small-Caretaker Amfleet

Pullman-Standard, 

Bombardier, MBB 

single level, Kawaski 

bi-level 51"

Aberdeen MD Amtrak/MARC $1,376 $24 $1,400 Small-Caretaker Amfleet

Kawaski bi-level, 

Sumitomo single 

level 51"

Dowagiac MI Amtrak $769 $44 $813 Small-Caretaker

Amfleet, 

Horizon, 

Superliner 18 & 51"

New Buffalo MI City of New Buffalo $322 $0 $322

Small-ShelterUnstaffedHorizon, 

Superliner 18 & 51"

St. Louis MO City of St. Louis $1,415 $0 $1,415 Large-Staffed

Amfleet, 

Horizon, 

Superliner 18 & 51"

AlbanyRensselaer NYCDTA Facilities, 

Inc./Amtrak $725 $0 $725 Large-Staffed Y Amfleet 51"

Poughkeepsie NY

Metropolitan 

Transportation 

Authority/MetroNorth $1,717 $39 $1,756 Small-Caretaker AmfleetM-series MU, 

Bombardier coach 51"

Ardmore PA SEPTA $1,430 $0 $1,430 Small-Caretaker Amfleet

Silverliners, 

Bombardier coach 51"

Coatesville PA Amtrak $1,066 $18 $1,084

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Amfleet 51"

Downingtown PA SEPTA $1,519 $235 $1,754

Small-ShelterUnstaffed AmfleetSilverliners, 

Bombardier coach 51"

Elizabethtown PA Amtrak $1,217 $160 $1,377

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Amfleet 51"

Exton PA SEPTA $1,976 $52 $2,028

Small-ShelterUnstaffed AmfleetSilverliners, 

Bombardier coach 51"

Middletown PA Amtrak $1,563 $14 $1,577

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Amfleet 51"

Mount Joy PA Amtrak $1,463 $125 $1,588

Small-ShelterUnstaffed Amfleet 51"

Paoli PA Amtrak $1,204 $77 $1,281 Medium-Staffed Amfleet

Silverliners, 

Bombardier coach 51"

Dallas TX City of Dallas $253 $0 $253 Medium-Staffed Superliner

Bombardier bi-level, 

Budd RDC 18 & 35"
35

Costs of Platform Improvements 

(Thousands of 2009 dollars)

Nominal Floor Heights of Cars Serving Amtrak and 

Shared Stations in 2006

Station State ADA Responsibility ADA

State of 

Good 

Repair Total

Station 

Classification

Stations 

with 48" 

Platforms 

in 2006

Amtrak 

Equipment

Commuter 

Equipment

Nominal 

Floor Heights

Richmond -

Staples Mill Rd. VA Amtrak $1,646 $239 $1,885 Large-Staffed

Amfleet,

Heritage, 

Viewliner 51"
36

Appendix B.

Summary Table of Docket Comments, 2006 NPRM

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Delaware DOT: Operate Delaware 

Transit Corporation 

(DTC), commuter rail 

contracted to SEPTA, 

share track with Norfolk 

Southern

Either bridge 

plates stored on 

station platforms 

(not enough for 

each door to have 

one) or mini-highs

with folding 

bridgeplates, one 

mini high per 

platform

Not if each door 

is required to 

have a 

bridgeplate. Use 

of the single 

mini-high could 

potentially 

require doublestopping

Providing access to ALL 

cars will increase dwell 

times, which must be 

maintained precisely on 

the NEC. Like all 

passengers, disabled 

passengers should be 

expected to go to the door 

nearest them, thus only 

one or two bridge plates 

needed

None
37

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

North Coast 

Transit District: 

COASTER commuter 

rail: use 28 Bombardier 

Bi-Levels (floor height 

24" above track) and 

seven MK Rail F40 or 

EMD F59 locomotives, 

shares with BNSF. 8 

stations, some shared 

with METROLINK and 

Amtrak Pacific Surfliner

designed for one 

Mini-high and 

bridge plate per 

track,

Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

Should not apply to new 

stations within existing 

SYSTEMS. If you don't do 

it system-wide, you could 

enter a car accessibly and 

then not have a mini high 

when you got out, leading 

to double spotting. A 

variety of floor heights 

operate in CA

If they were required to 

install and operate mini 

highs at all car doors, they 

would need to add another 

crew member to each train. 

One new crew member = 

125,000. With five consists 

that comes to 625,000 a 

year. If they did not add a 

crew member, dwell times 

could increase from 30-45 

seconds to over 90 seconds, 

which would require the 

purchase of an additional 

consist = 250,000 for two 

new crew members, plus 

annual operating and 

maintenance funding at 

$380,000
38

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Metra (x2): 10 out of 11 lines share 

ROW, 11th is the Metra 

Electric. 244 stations, 5 

downtown terminals, 

1,000 + cars (75% have 

track-level boarding, 

25% are electric with 

high-level boarding) 

62% of stations are fully 

accessible, 11% partially. 

Planning potentially 4 

new lines, all on existing 

freight railroads

Level boarding 

with bridge plates 

on Metra Electric, 

Car-borne lifts on 

60% of diesel 

vehicles meaning 

2 fully accessible 

cars on each diesel 

train (cost of 

installation: 30 

million) Plan to 

have all cars with 

lifts by 2030

not on 10 of 11 

lines until 2030

High-level platforms may 

obstruct drivers views, not 

enough space at stations to 

build gauntlet tracks, share 

ROW

Making all cars high-level 

would require replacing the 

fleet at a cost of 2.5 - 3.0 

billion equipping 479 cars 

for 30 million provides 

rough estimate of $62,630 

per car- based lift

Borough of 

Elizabethtown, 

PA: 

restoring an historic 

station to make it 

handicap accessible

mini-high Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

historic station canopy is 

too low for high-level 

platform

Nashville: 6 stations, share track 

with Nashville and 

Eastern Railroad 

Corporation

mini-high and 

bridge plates

depends on how 

many minihighs they have

gauntlet tracks create more 

work for the railroad 

dispatcher and increase the 

potential for accidents

gauntlet tracks = 1,000,000
39

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Michigan DOT: Likely writing in 

concerning Amtrak 

Michigan Services, 

although there are 

proposals for commuter 

rail in Detroit and Ann 

Arbor. The docket 

submission does not 

provide a context.

Varying floor heights, 

freight ROW, and 

tolerances prevent level 

boarding; the whole 

consist should be viewed 

as a unit that is accessible 

or not, and DOT should 

define 'technically or 

operationally infeasible'

DART/FWTA: Trinity Railway Express: 

share with BNSF, 

operates two types of 

cars with two different 

floor entry heights, light 

rail shares track at key 

stations and is yet a third 

level. Average trainset is 

either 3 bi-level cars (6 

doors) or two rail diesel 

cars (3 doors). Use one 

attendant and one 

engineer. 

provide access via 

bi-level mini-highs

Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

Existing stations may 

already be sited along 

curves where 

recommended tolerances 

are exceeded, most 

modern cars have pocket 

doors that cannot be flush 

with the exterior, is 

removing at-grade 

crossings a safety feature 

which would need to be 

replaced at all stations, 

rather than a few, need a 

dimensional definition of 

the word "narrow". Do not 

share platforms with 

Amtrak, why should they 

match car floor heights? 

If they needed a bridge 

plate at all doors, dwell 

time would triple or they 

would need one attendant 

per car which would have a 

total cost of $2,134,600 a 

year, equal to 15% of the 

operating budget. Since 

they cannot, in fact, have 

full high platforms because 

of two different car heights, 

they would have to stop at 

each mini-high, a solution 

so onerous they would 

likely recommend ceasing 

service
40

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Metrolink 

(Riverside 

County 

Transportation 

Commission sent 

in additional 

information):

Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority: 

54 passenger stations, 

40,000 daily riders on 

145 weekday trains over 

635 track miles, of which 

it owns 297, the North 

Coast Transit District 

owns 338, and BNSF and 

UPRR own the rest. 619 

miles of track are shared 

with BNSF and UPRR, 

and 219 are shared with 

Amtrak. Cars are 25" 

above track. Amtrak 

serves 20 stations. 

Riverside letter mentions 

a Perris Valley 

expansion.

one mini-high at 

each station

Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

DOT has previously 

clarified that doublestopping would not be 

necessary except when 

wheelchair spaces in the 

car at the mini-high were 

already taken. The Hoyt 

Cinemas court case says 

that disabled persons 

cannot expect to sit 

anywhere, can they expect 

to board anywhere?

Placing platform at rail car 

floor height would cost 

1,000,000 per platform, 

making total estimated cost 

$85 million, no space for 

gauntlets, bridgeplates 

would add 5-9 minutes, for 

average length (4 cars) on 

average line (11 stations) 

avg. trip time would 

increase from 1:45 to 2:45, 

while the longest trains (6) 

on the longest routes (14) 

would go from 2:20 to 4:15. 
41

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

SEPTA (2x): 352 commuter rail cars, 

13 rail routes, and 35 

million passenger trips in 

FY10. Shares track with 

Amtrak and freight, has 

infrastructure over 100 

years old. 

high level 

platforms only, but 

not with enough 

bridge plates for 

every car

Not if each door 

is required to 

have a 

bridgeplate. 

Level boarding clearly 

preferable. Where not 

possible, multiple minihighs or multiple lifts 

would place too many 

potential hazards on the 

platform and block the 

conductor's line of sight.

Number of bridge plates 

should be left to the 

determination of the 

operator. Damage to 

passenger platforms by 

freight railroads is a result 

of freight railroad 

negligence, not poor 

platform design. The

restriction on objects 

within 6’ of the edge 

should apply only to 

continuous objects like 

walls, rather than to 

columns, and should not 

apply to existing 

obstructions even when 

the station is being 

modified to come up to 

ADA standards. NEC 

trains are 51" above tracks, 

not 48".

Two gauntlet tracks = 20 

million dollars, not 

including any station 

relocation or additional real 

estate needed
42

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Central Puget 

Sound Regional 

Transit Agency: 

Seattle Sounder: operates 

on tracks owned by 

BNSF. 9-12 stations (3 

proposed), 3 of which are 

also served by Amtrak, 

58 cars, 11 locomotives, 

all Bombardier. Use 36 

cars and 3 locomotives, 

rent out others, track 

used by DOD

mini high platform 

with ramp to train

Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

Transit Cooperative 

Research project has 

research on this issue, due 

out just after end of 

proposed comment period. 

Gauntlet tracks increase 

safety risk. Inset doors 

provide an extra step that 

helps the Sounder comply 

with host railroad needs. 

1:8 ramps would require 

the assistance of train 

personnel for those whose 

age or infirmity would 

prevent them from 

managing such slope, and 

may weigh more than the 

30 pound OSHA standard. 

Having designated cars for 

disabled passengers make 

it easier for emergency 

personal to find them in 

the event of an accident, 

Amtrak uses 48", 25" and 

15" 

Bridge plates at every door 

would require an additional 

crew member per train, at a 

cost of 2.7 million a year. 
43

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Utah Transit 

Authority: 

commuter rail service 

between Salt Lake City 

and Ogden and Provo 

(proposed at time of 

submission, but Ogden is 

now operational and SL -

Provo is under 

construction according to 

the website) 13 stations 

including Salt Lake 

Central and the new 

Provo line 

use car with 8 

wheelchair spaces 

as first train car, 

pulls up to minihigh with bridge 

plate

Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

1:8 ramp is feasible. given 

FRA safety requirements, 

commuter rail cars will 

have to be 25" above, can't 

always make 6 foot 

clearance without 

rebuilding highways or 

failing to provide cover at 

stations, wheelchair riders 

would need to let 

conductors know which 

car and which stop. Could 

install button system, but 

subject to mischievous

uses. Need rail cars with 

automatic bridge plates. 
44

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

NJ Transit: 11 lines, 162 stations, 67 

of which are accessible. 

35 key stations, 31 of 

which are accessible with 

the other 4 under 

construction or in design 

(probably done by now), 

level boarding with 

bridge plates

Not if each door 

is required to 

have a 

bridgeplate. 

Cannot meet gap 

requirements; already have 

stored bridgeplates, 

retractable edges, a 

gauntlet track, and minihighs and highs. Currently, 

distance from centerline to 

edge is 67" and standard 

car with is 10', which 

leaves a 7" + gap. Current 

floor height and platform 

height are both 51" but 

vary more than 5/8" 

especially at Metro Park 

and Matawan. NJT 

concurs with FRA on 

allowances. Do not wish 

to increase reliance on 

bridge plates due to 

potential delay, also feel 

that bridge ramps are 

performing well, but are 

looking to place some on 

vehicles and increase the 

number in stations, make 

mobility devices conform 

to standards that include 

securement locations. 
45

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

CA DOT (2x) + 

capital corridor 

sent in own 

letter: 

San Joaquin and Capital 

Corridor share with 

UPRR and BNSF and are 

used by DOD, service 25 

stations. Capital 

Corridor serves 170 

miles of track (all but 2 

of which are owned by 

UPRR) and links San 

Jose, Oakland/San 

Francisco, and 

Sacramento. Links to 

accessible buses and is 

third busiest Amtrak 

route. Capital Corridor 

has 8" platforms. Pacific 

Surfliner shares with 

Metrolink and Coaster. 

Operate 128 cars with a 

height of 18.5"

San Joaquin and 

Capital corridors 

use wheelchair lift 

equipped cars (78). 

Pacific Surfliner 

uses mini-highs 

and bridgeplates

San Joaquin and 

Capital 

Corridor: yes 

PS: Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

Amfleet cars measure 51" 

at top of rail. Local 

commuter rail Metrolink, 

Coaster, Caltrain, and 

ACE all have 25" heights 

and share stations, making 

level platforms difficult. 

Capital Corridor 

California cars and 

Amtrak Superliners have 

18.5" floor heights. 

2010 updated cost figures 

increased the cost per 

station from 6.5 million to 

14.2M, with the breakdown 

as follows: Cost of new 

2,500 ft. station track:

Design, Grading and 

Utilities (per station): 

$2.0M, Track Construction 

- (per station): $2.2M

Signal Construction - (per 

station); $2M

Platform W/Shelters and 

Parking (Double Sided): 

$3M, Relocate 

Transportation Center 

(Depot, property, utilities, 

etc); $5M; Total estimated 

cost for station

modifications

(per station): $14.2M

Number of stations in 

California with intercity rail 

service: 56

Estimated cost of 

modification to all 

stations:$795.2M
46

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

ARRC (2x): 500+ miles, 500,000 

passengers in 2005. 80% 

of revenue from freight 

operations, low level 

platforms with long 

trains: 4 platforms allow 

for 20 car trains, and 2 

for 10+. 7 consists

serving 10 stations on 

peak days in summer 

Considering expansions.

Part of STRACNET. 

Varying car floor 

heights. Flag stop

service, meaning that not 

everyone boards from a 

station, but can provide 

lifts at certain whistle 

stops. Some stops have 

populations under 1,000. 

wheelchair lifts at 

all stations

yes, if only one 

mobile lift is 

required

Will flag stop service be 

exempt? Exposed ramps 

will get icy. At 51", 

standard dynamic 

clearance is 7'8", so a high 

platform would need to be 

placed 30" from the car, 

also must clear snow 23' 

from track centerline. 
47

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

South Florida 

RTA: 

Tri-Rail: 18 stations on 

72 miles of track shared 

with Amtrak and CSX, 

just renovated 9 stations 

and added 1. Amtrak 

serves 5. All platforms 

are 8" from top of rail. 

Coaches are 25” and

Amtrak is 51". Planning 

to buy 14 trailers and 10 

cab cars from SCRRA 

with a 25" floor height. 

Also getting two DMU, 

which are 51" and will 

have a wheelchair lift 

and a trailer car in the 

middle at 25". Only the 

cab car has an ADA 

restroom, so they put it at 

the mini-high. Unclear 

whether the DMU trailer 

car will pull up to the 

mini-high. 

For tri-rail, use 

mini-high at north 

end, for Amtrak

use mobile lift. 

New DMUs will 

have car based 

wheelchair lift.

Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance.

Solutions can be found to 

board at two different 

heights, do not need level 

boarding. 

The restroom retrofit cost 

100,000+ each. 
48

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

RTD: Four proposed corridors. 

Two corridors share 

tracks with BNSF (44 

miles) or UPP (a few 

miles), Denver Union 

Station is hub, used by 

Rio Grande Ski Train 

and Amtrak. BNSF 

contract limits platforms 

to 8" and 5' 4" from track 

centerline. Initially

thinking about 4 cars. 

Unclear. Still 

under construction. 

Potentially waiting 

for new ruling

Unable to make vertical 

clearance requirements 

without adjustable leveling 

cars, and can only meet 

horizontal clearance with 

an 8" platform. The ramp 

for an 8" platform would 

need to be 6 feet long so 

RTD concurs with FRA. 

Staffing requirements 

would double if bridge 

plates needed to be 

deployed at every car. 

You cannot force a Class I 

railroad to meet these 

restrictions. They will just 

deny access. Unfair to 

those just starting out. If 

excessive cost can keep an 

existing system from 

retrofitting, it should also 

be defined and available to 

new system developers as 

an exception. 
49

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Triangle Transit 

Authority: 

(Plans may have been 

changed or cancelled):

Diesel multiple units on 

a track owned by North 

Carolina railroad and on 

track owned by TTA 

(purchased from CSX). 

Will operate separate 

from Amtrak and freight 

rail on double track 26 ft 

from existing track. Cars 

and platforms are 51" 

high. Extensions will be 

on freight rail corridors. 

level boarding yes No solution for sharing 

between commuter rail 

and freight is adequate. 

San Joaquin 

Regional Rail 

Commission

Altamont Commuter 

Express: 3 weekday 

roundtrips between 

Stockton, CA and San 

Jose, CA. 88 miles long, 

84 owned by UPRR and 

4 by Caltrain. 9 stations, 

3 owned by San Joaquin 

RRC. 

mini-high Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

Heights vary among cars 

serving the station, and 

UPRR can't have 

platforms higher than 18".

Normal, IL Designing new 

intermodal station using 

5309 funds. Initial design 

has 8" platform, which 

already 48" from main 

entrance. Track owned 

by UPRR

either car or 

platform based lift

currently 

unknown

Heights vary among cars 

serving the station, and 

UPRR can't have 

platforms higher than 18".
50

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

MoDOT: 12 stations served by 

Amtrak: Amtrak owns 

one, the state owns one, 

local towns own 10. The 

state of MO pays at most 

$25,000 a year for all 

stations. Tracks shared 

with UP. 

wheelchair ramps Only if they are 

mobile and one 

per station is 

sufficient. If 

they are 

immobile, could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

Use both 51 and 18.5 

heights. Many platforms 

are shorter than even the 

3-car trains and block the 

street while stopped. 
51

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

MTA: none provided in docket bridge plates 

stored on LIRR 

and MNR

Not if each door 

is required to 

have a 

bridgeplate.

Concur with FRA. Want to 

maintain 1:4 and 1:6 ramp 

standards or will have to 

replace ramps. Ramps that 

meet 1:8 could not be 

stored on board trains and 

would require two crew 

members and a station 

based lock box. Cannot 

always meet gap 

requirements of 10" and 

13". Also, ask what if 

wheelchair user cannot 

have independent access? 

The MTA crew assists

wheelchair users while 

manually deploying the 

bridge plates. NEC height 

is 51 inches, not 48. 

Gauntlet = 15 million
52

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Cascades Runs from Eugene, OR 

to Vancouver BC via 

Seattle, 60,000 annual 

ridership (up 76% from 

1994), Amtrak operates 

on behalf of WSDOT, 

and also runs the Empire 

Builder (Seattle, 

Portland, Chicago) and 

the Coast Starlight 

(Seattle to LA). WSDOT 

owns 3/5 of trainsets and 

has spent 270 million on 

Cascades since 1973. 

onboard train lifts yes, if they are 

on every car

Talgo, superliner, and 

Bombardier all have 

different floor heights. 

Building a new station in 

Stanwood, WA costs 5 

million for an 8" platform. 

PA DOT: Norfolk Southern moves 

freight along the 

Keystone Corridor 

mini high Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping to be 

in compliance

freight lines cannot have 

high platforms

5 million per platform for 

high boarding, 2 million for 

gauntlet track. 
53

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

MBTA: 126 stations, 55 train 

sets, 463 trains per day. 

25 stations are full length 

high platforms, 58 have 

mini-highs. The full 

highs include terminal 

platforms, Old Colony 

stations, Rowley, and 

Back Bay. Each coach 

has a standard bridge 

plate. If the mini-high 

does not have a standard 

bridge plate, it has its 

own. No station agents 

except in Boston, so the 

train crew operates all 

plates (anywhere from 1 

conductor to 1 conductor 

and 3 assistants). Mini 

highs are located at the 

outbound end, 

vary by station Use of the 

single mini-high 

could 

potentially 

require doublestopping. 

Stations without 

mini-highs are 

unclear in the 

level of service 

provided

It would take 10 minutes 

for each car to stop at the 

mini high

Consists = 10 million + 
54

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Amtrak (2x): Serve over 300,000 

disabled passengers. Is 

the responsible party at 

about 425 out of the 515 

stations it serves (the 

other 90 are owned by 

public entities). 50 

stations renovated since 

1991

varies by station varies by station No uniformity in rail car 

heights. Opposition from 

historic preservationists, 

even just to build a shed to 

house a station based 

wheelchair lift. Conflicts 

with freight clearance and 

DOD needs. 

2-4 million for gauntlet or 

bypass tracks

Sedalia, MO: Example of small 

business impact. Sedalia 

Downtown development 

incorporated owns 

station, rails owned by 

UPRR, 3 car train. 

mechanical lift yes, if mobile 

lift is sufficient 

to "provide 

access to all 

accessible cars"

At 15", need setback of 6-

12" creating a loading 

hazard for all passengers. 

Would not be compatible 

with Superliners. 

Caltrain; 34 stations, no low floor 

cars, 1 accessible car 

with 2 wheelchair spaces 

per train 

(from website) use 

a combination of 

platform lifts, 

onboard lifts, and 

mini-highs

only one 

accessible car 

per train, so 

theoretically in 

compliance

varying floor heights, 

conflict with state 

regulations, 
55

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

MARC: Share tracks with CSX 

and another company, 

have 40 stations without 

level platforms. 

varies by station varies by station Crossing tracks with high 

platforms necessitates

tunnels, bridges, elevators, 

etc. What about situations

where high-level platform 

is shorter than train? Is 

double stopping required? 

Need to pay attention to 

military needs. 

5 to 6 million to construct 

high level platforms at 

Halthorpe, MD, 203 million 

for the tunnels, elevators, 

etc. 

Downeaster: Five roundtrips between 

Portland and Boston, 

329,000 riders, a 31% 

increase over the 

previous year

not stated unknown concurs with Amtrak and 

CADOT

Comments from Non-Operators

Railroads for 

National 

Defense: 

branch of DOD responsible for maintaining 

railroads' capability to move military 

equipment

n/a n/a Certain rail lines need to 

be able to have M-1 tanks 

pass through. These are 

STRACNET designated 

and could not have highlevel platforms.

Raul Bravo: consulting company n/a n/a lays out reasons why level 

boarding cannot be 

implemented across the 
56

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

board, no longer relevant 

given changes to proposal

Midwest High 

Speed Rail 

Association: 

Advocacy organization n/a n/a gap standards are too 

strict, deploying bridge 

plates for all users would 

increase dwell times, 

please create a national 

standard and do not make 

platforms higher than 15" 

over TOR, preferably 8"

Nippon Sharyo: car manufacturer n/a n/a all commuter railroads are 

already in compliance with 

ADA, multiple car heights 

on same train/same 

regions, vehicle mounted 

wheelchair lifts can 

facilitate the evacuation of 

physically disable 

passengers in emergency 

situations (if they can be 

manually operated)

Association of 

American 

Railroads: 

Speaking for freight railroads in particular n/a n/a summarizes objections of 

other docket submissions

NARP National Association of Rail Passengers n/a n/a against the regulations 

because of potential 

service reductions due to 

increased costs

Empire State 

Passenger Rail 

Association

New York specific passenger rail group n/a n/a against the regulations 

because of potential 

service reductions due to 
57

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

increased costs

Ohio Rail 

Development 

Corporation: 

branch of Ohio DOT n/a n/a would be too expensive 

without federal funds to 

back it, would limit the 

growth of railroads in 

Ohio

Bombardier: car manufacturer n/a n/a concurs with FRA on gap 

requirements and believes 

even the more tolerant gap 

requirements cannot 

always be met, notes 

varying floor heights, and 

states that the assertion 

that mini-highs create 

dangerous spaces is not 

based on fact, need better 

definition of accessible car 

BNSF: freight railroad n/a n/a provides evidence for why 

freight rail and high 

platforms cannot co-exist
58

Commenter Commenter 

Background

Current practice 

(if operator)

Would this be 

in compliance 

with the 

regulation?

Points made in 

comments

Cost Estimates if provided

Commuter Rail 

Operators Group:

taken from a presentation made by the group to 

the FTA

n/a n/a These included comments 

that DOT ADA 

regulations do not require 

level boarding, that there 

has been no demand for 

more than one accessible 

car per train, that minihigh platforms have 

proven to be reliable and 

cost effective, and that 

freight clearances prevent 

level boarding. A train be 

considered as one 

"vehicle" for ADA 

purposes, in the same 

manner as an articulated 

bus or light rail vehicle, 

and that providing 

integrated access to the 

train would result in 

longer travel times and 

longer dwell times, which 

would impact the ability of 

a commuter rail system to 

provide frequent, fast 

service

Burbank 

Advisory 

Council on 

Disabilities

Based in Burbank, CA. Entire town voted to 

oppose. 

n/a n/a against the regulations 

because of potential 

service reductions due to 

increased costs
59
60

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS

Introduction

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C §601 et seq.) requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and 

final rules on small business, small organizations and small Government jurisdictions.

5 U.S.C §603 requires agencies to prepare and make available for public comments initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(RFA) describing the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities. Section 603(b) of the Act specifies the content of a RFA. 

Each RFA must contain:

1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;

2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for a final rule;

3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the final rule will apply;

4. A description of the projected reporting, recording keeping and other compliance requirements of a final rule including an

estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary

for preparation of the report or record;

5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the 

final rule;

6. Each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to the final rule which 

accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on 

small entities.

What is a small entity?

The RFA recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: (1) small businesses, (2) small non-profit organizations, and (3) and 

small government jurisdictions. 
61

Small businesses. Section 601(3) of the RFA defines a “small business” as having the same meaning as “small business concern”, 

which is defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. Small business or small business concern includes any firm that is 

independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation. The SBA has established size criteria for all major 

industry sectors in the United States. 

Small organizations. The RFA defines “small organizations” as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field. 

Small governmental jurisdictions. The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000.

Description of the reason why action by the agency is being considered

The Department is proposing to amend its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 regulations to update requirements 

concerning rail station platforms.

Objectives of, and legal basis for, the final rule

The draft final rules concern integrated access for persons with disabilities to trains serving new or altered intercity and commuter rail 

station platforms. The Department believes that in choosing accessibility solutions it is important – as the Department’s 504 

regulation has long stated (49 CFR 27.7(b)(2)) – that service be provided “in the most integrated setting that is reasonably achievable.” 

The Department proposes to specifically include this principle in its ADA regulation as well. The implication of this principle in the 

rail station context is that the accessibility solution that provides service in the most integrated setting should be chosen.

Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the final rule will apply

The rule applies to commuter rail and intercity rail station platforms built or altered after the effective date. Commuter rail operators 

and Amtrak, the intercity passenger rail operator, both of whom would generally have responsibility for ADA compliance of station 

platforms, are not small governmental jurisdictions. 
62

Data on the ownership and ADA responsibility of the platforms at individual commuter rail stations were not available for this 

analysis. The assumption is that all are owned by commuter rail agencies which are not small government jurisdictions. Thus this 

analysis represents a lower bound estimate of the proposed rule’s impact on small entities. Anecdotal information indicates that there 

may be situations on some of the older systems, e.g., Metra and Metro-North, where portions of the station complex are owned or 

maintained by local governments. However, the actual number of cases where a local government unit with a population under 50,000 

(or small business) had ADA responsibility for platforms in commuter rail service could not be determined within the scope of this 

analysis. 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 219 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Amtrak performed an 

evaluation of the condition of its stations and its plan for making them fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (ADA).15 Part of this study involved identifying ownership and ADA responsibility of the station building, platforms and 

parking for each station served. Cost estimates to make platforms ADA compliant were also developed. Amtrak identified 143 

stations where ADA responsibility for platforms was shared by Amtrak and another entity or the sole responsibility of another entity. 

Of these 17 were small governments and 3 were a small business. "Small governmental jurisdiction" means governments of cities, 

counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 50,000. These are listed in 

Table 1. The statutory small business definitions vary by 4-digit SIC code and are found at 13 CFR Part 121. The small businesses 

included a short line railroad (NAICS code 48212), a museum (NAICS code 712110) and a hotel (NAICS code 722110). In order to 

be classified as a “small business" short line railroads must have <500 employees. Museums and hotels must have annual revenues of 

<$7 million. These are listed in Table 2.

Amtrak’s latest progress report16 indicates that barrier free access has been provided at 8 of these stations (Winslow, AZ; Wasco, CA; 

Ashland, KY; St. Joseph, MI; Durand, MI; Ardmore, OK; Kingstree, SC; and Gainesville, TX) by means of wheelchair lifts, pads and 

enclosures for the lift and other improvements to sidewalks and parking lots. An ADA-compliant platform is under construction in 

Kingman, AZ, and an ADA-compliant station and platform is under construction in New Buffalo, MI, where “ADA-compliant” is in 

reference to the existing regulations. This reduces the number of small governmental jurisdictions impacted by the proposed rule to 

15.

 

15 Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, A Report on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, National Rail Passenger 

Corporation, February 1, 2009.

16 Intercity Rail Stations Served by Amtrak, An Update on Accessibility and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, National Rail 

Passenger Corporation, October 27, 2010.
63

There is currently no case law that identifies the "trigger" levels of "significant economic impact," or "substantial number of small 

entities."17 However, Tables 1 and 2 provide information that may aid the decision maker in assessing the affect on small entities

These show Amtrak’s estimated platform costs relative to annual revenue of the small entities where such information was available. 

The impact on individual governments varies from 0.2% of revenues to almost 20%. For the one small business where revenue 

information was available, platform costs would be 76% of annual revenues. However, when looked at from a national perspective it 

appears that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, these costs are 

estimated based on current regulations and would be incurred even in under the status quo, with no incremental impact due to the draft 

final rule.

A description of the projected reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements of a final rule including an 

estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record

This rule includes no new requirements for reporting, record keeping or other compliance requirements that are likely to impact small 

entities..

An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final 

rule

The Department is proposing to amend its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 regulations to update requirements 

concerning rail station platforms.

The revised 37.41 would replace material presently found in 10.3.1(9) of Appendix A to Part 37. One of the purposes of this 

amendment is to maintain the status quo with respect to this requirement, given the adoption by DOT of the latest ADAAG standards, 

which do not include this language. The NPRM would also make conforming amendments to provisions in 49 CFR part 38 

concerning commuter rail and intercity passenger cars.

 

17 A Guide to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, D.C., May 1996. 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/rgSBAGuide.pdf
64

We know of no other Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.

A description of any significant alternatives to the final rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and 

which minimize any significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities

There are no other alternatives that can achieve the stated objectives. The impacts cited above are the same for the proposed rule and 

the current regulations. The proposed rule would impose no additional burden on the small entities above and beyond that imposed by

the current set of regulations and requirements. 
65

Table 1 - Small Governmental Jurisdictions with ADA Platform Responsibility for Intercity Stations

Station State

ADA 

Responsibility

Total 

Platform Cost 

Small 

Entity 

Platform 

Share

Small Entity 

Platform Cost

Small Entity 

Annual 

Budget/Revenue

Percent of 

Revenues

Kingman AZ City of Kingman $825,000 100% $825,000 $231,316,219 0.36%

Carpinteria CA

City of 

Carpinteria/Amtrak $223,000 50% $111,500 $12,970,958 0.86%

Emeryville CA City of Emeryville $863,000 100% $863,000 $37,211,681 2.32%

Wasco CA City of Wasco $223,000 100% $223,000 $26,511,082 0.84%

Wallingford CT

Town of 

Wallingford/Amtrak $546,000 50% $273,000 $141,510,000 0.19%

Palatka FL City of Palatka $587,000 100% $587,000 $8,955,000 6.55%

Princeton IL

City of 

Princeton/Amtrak $480,000 50% $240,000 $6,223,850 3.86%

Ashland KY

City of 

Ashland/Amtrak $279,000 50% $139,500 $24,344,357 0.57%

Durand MI City of Durand $872,000 100% $872,000 NA NA

New Buffalo MI City of New Buffalo $322,000 100% $322,000 $2,132,900 15.10%

St. Joseph MI City of St. Joseph $475,000 100% $475,000 $15,688,403 3.03%

Ardmore OK City of Ardmore $484,000 100% $484,000 $45,634,217 1.06%

Kingstree SC Town of Kingstree $964,000 100% $964,000 NA NA

Gainesville TX City of Gainesville $451,000 100% $451,000 $29,242,122 1.54%

Rutland VT City of Rutland $238,000 100% $238,000 $17,601,335 1.35%

Danville VA City of Danville $426,000 100% $426,000 $101,467,120 0.42%

Sturtevant WI Village of Sturtevant $776,000 100% $776,000 $3,957,924 19.61%
66

Table 2 - Small Businesses with ADA Platform Responsibility for Intercity Stations

Station State ADA Responsibility

Total 

Platform 

Cost 

Small 

Entity 

Platform 

Share

Small 

Entity 

Platfor

m Cost

Small Entity 

Annual 

Budget/

Revenue

Percent of 

Revenues

Winslow AZ La Posada, LLC $573,000 100%

$573,0

00 $750,000 76.40%

Mendota IL

Mendota Museum and 

Historical Society $615,000 100%

$615,0

00 NA NA

Bellows 

Falls VT

Amtrak/Green Mountain 

Railroad Corporation $477,000 50%

$238,5

00 NA NA